Give me one second.

I don't know if you're going to be working for you.

Okay.

Very good.

Hello.

Everyone's mics.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you for coming this evening and welcome to our July 9th 2026.

City of Napa special meeting for the Cultural Heritage Commission.

Actually, it's just our regular meeting, and it's for the Cultural Heritage Commission.

So I'd like to call to order, please.

And if Myra would conduct roll call, please.

Commissioner McKinney.

Commissioner Rasmussen.

Here.

Commissioner Wesson.

Here.

Vice Chair Tweeka.

And Chair Van Giza.

Here.

Now will you all please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance?

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag to the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, invisible with liberty and justice for all.

Great.

Thank you for joining in that a tradition here.

We will now go on to item number three, which is the agenda review and supplemental reports.

The Cultural Heritage Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph M.

Brown Act, which is California Government Code Sections 9, excuse me, five four nine five zero, and pursuant to the city rules of order for the Cultural Heritage Commission meetings, which is under our policy resolution ten.

Staff, are there any changes or supplemental reports this evening to this agenda?

No changes to tonight's agenda, but there were two supplemental memos that were sent out earlier today, and they are available copies in the back.

Excellent.

Yes, I received it.

Excellent.

Um are there any proposed changes from the commissioners at this time?

No.

Anyone?

Very good.

So then uh moving on, we're going to go to public comment, which is item number four.

Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Cultural Heritage Commission on items of interest not otherwise noted on the agenda.

Each speaker's comments uh will be limited to three minutes, please, and will comply with the rules of order for the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting minutes.

And Myra, did you have anyone in public who uh has provided comment cards or wish to provide public comments on non-agenda items at this time?

I receive none.

Okay, very good.

Um then item five, consent calendar, and then consent hearings, item six.

Are we having uh the minutes would be under the consent calendar?

So item five A.

Uh does commissioners at this time have anything uh to change or report in the minutes at this point.

No, any changes?

I have none.

Do I have a uh motion to approve the minutes that we received?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

I'll second it.

All in favor?

Aye, aye.

Excellent.

Um moving on to item six, consent hearings.

We have none at this time.

And then on to item seven, which is the public hearings and appeals.

It's 7a, which is the Franklin station to redevelopment project and the development agreement.

And at this time, I'll read a little induction introduction about what our uh item 7a is.

The Cultural Heritage Commission will consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding an application for the certificate of appropriateness, authorizing major alterations, and the preservation of the Franklin Station Post Office building, which is identified as a national registered property and a local landmark collectively going forth called the project.

The project would preserve significant historic features on the building consistent with pages 116 and 117 of the downtown specific plan, which is appendix G.

The application coincides with other approvals that would provide the redevelopment of an approximately 1.44 acre property, including two new buildings.

The project property is located within the downtown mixed use general plan designation and the downtown mixed-use DMU and Plan Development PD 37 overlay district.

It includes various APNs, which you can find on the minutes on the agenda as well.

The secret determination is an addendum and its attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the proposed project is within the scope of the project evaluated in the downtown Napa specific plan environmental impact report.

And the acronym follows.

Certified by the Napa City Council in resolution R 2012 54, adopted on May 1st, 2012.

The addendum finds that the project is within the scope of the development program described and evaluated in the DNSP EEIR, including the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, otherwise known as CEQA, Public Resources Code 2100, et cetera.

And the July 9th, 2026 public hearing, the Cultural Heritage Commission will consider whether or not to make a recommendation to the City Council on the project applications and whether or not the addendum was prepared in compliance with the applic um applicable CEQA requirements.

The recommended action by staff, it recommends that the Cultural Heritage Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council to one adopt the resolution approving pursuant to Section 15168 analysis, an addendum to the downtown Napa specific plan, programmatic environmental impact report, and an alternatively to the CEQA guidelines sections 15 332 categorical exemption.

Number two, adopt a resolution approving a certificate of appropriateness and determine that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed and addressed by a prior California Environmental Quality Act CEQA action as documented in the addendum for the Franklin Station 2 project.

A mouthful.

Excellent.

Commissioner Wesson.

I also met with David Oliver and Bill Tueka, and we toured the inside and the outside of the U.S.

Postal Office.

Very good.

Yes, I was on a tour on Monday with Karen and David Oliver and several years ago I had also toured the post office as well.

Commissioner Kennedy.

And both the inside and the outside of the building.

Excellent.

I have been on the commission for a few years, so uh, and have worked with some of the members in this community in various uh forms in my past architectural and public uh venues and experiences.

I was a member of the Downtown Specific Plan, so that was a part of my reviews oh so long ago.

Um, after 2014 earthquake, I was at the time the vice president of Napa County Landmarks, and I worked with several folks uh fighting to save the Franklin station at the time for a preservation and future reuse.

I've met several people along the way with this process, and um I also worked with NAPA Design Partners years ago and was involved in the project in 2018 meeting.

Uh then the stakeholders for a meeting uh inside the building.

Um at the time of our last meeting in October 2018, 2020 2018.

Excuse me, I was absent from that meeting.

Uh, when the earthquake did occur, I took several photos in case anybody wants those at that time uh and did a tour by myself, uh, far enough away, possibly.

Um, on 2026, I met staff a couple times on Tuesday for a discussion, a pre-meeting, and I also met uh David Oliver twice on Wednesday, and we toured the building uh thoroughly again.

So I welcome all the stakeholders here tonight and um and and moving forward.

So now we will hear from staff on their report, please.

Thank you, Chair Van Giesen, members of the commission, and I appreciate understand that there's a lot of material here, there's a lot of history, no pun intended, but a lot of a lot of context to be added through the discussion.

Um, and then I think it's demonstrated to the applicants team and who's here tonight through the architect, the preservation architect, members of the applicants team to be able to answer any questions that you have.

Um, generally, yes, this is Franklin Station 2.

So it's the second version of the redevelopment of Franklin Station.

Um, won't summarize it, but it because I think you summarized it and did justice to it.

But the applicant is James Keller.

The project is located.

The specific part of your purview, I'll establish both an overall project and then just generally project is when I'm referring to the purview that you have.

But I also want to get you to understand too that the context matters, the building form matters, the overall project does matter, as well as some of those circulation patterns, because there is a finding related to that, and there is an overall civic presence of this building that is significant and is a resource that shall be considered.

But so the project sites at 1351 2nd Street.

Overall, there are multiple addresses for the project.

Uh, but the the subject property is both on the kind of the southeast side of 2nd Street, straddled by both Franklin Street and Randolph Street.

Um, uptown theater to the rear, as well as the Zellers Hardware Store to the rear.

Is requesting the consideration of the Cultural Heritage Commission and making a recommendation to City Council, adopting a resolution, approving a certificate of appropriateness, which would authorize major alterations and the preservation of the Franklin Station post office.

But I I want you to understand, because there are multiple moving parts of this, that the city council ultimately holds discretion.

Planning commission made a recommendation on June 30th in council's consideration to adopt the other resolutions and ordinances that they are also requesting a plan development overlay amendment and considering adoption of that ordinance.

They're considering the adoption of a development agreement.

Design review permit, which probably has the most overlap into the purview of both planning commission and the cultural heritage commission, because the materials, the new addition do matter as far as how they tie into the historic presence of the post office.

And then there is a tentative parcel map.

So while most of that's not in your purview, I do want to establish there is understandably a little bit of overlap between the purview of CHG and Planning Commission.

So ultimately, the the deciding body is City Council.

So this is the Franklin Station Post Office.

I would be uh remiss to not mention that it was formally renamed by Congress in 2010 to the Thomas Consgard Post Office, who was a local Superior Court judge with Napa County for a substantial amount of time.

Um and then that there was a ceremony in 2011 where the community was brought out in his honor.

Context is important, right?

The timelines here generally kind of build the story of both this building as well as what's occurred post-earthquake.

So in 1933, architects William Will Corlett, Walter Reed of Oakland firm Reed and Corlet designed the post office.

It was significant and strong example of local presence of art, both Art Deco design and that WPA, which is works public administration.

So it was some additional funding, trying to both you know increase the amount of jobs, put substantial amount of money during the Great Depression.

So you see generally a lot of buildings around the nation that were constructed during this era that have a great presence.

So a lot of post offices still remain as post offices.

Some have been converted since.

But generally I want you to understand that that's kind of a the story it tells is that there was a huge desire for that kind of civic presence in buildings.

William Will Corlet was was local relatively to Napa, was on several commissions through that period, so it was very um at least notable.

But in January 11th of 1985, that this structure, as it was a post office of the time, was added to the National Register of Historic Places, both for the reasons formerly mentioned.

In 2010, as I previously mentioned, the U.S.

Congress acted to rename the post office, the Thomas Consgard Post Office through efforts of Mike Thompson and such.

Story doesn't end there, but a substantial issue that occurred was obviously the South Napa earthquake.

August 24, 2014, the post office experienced some of the most significant damage of any building due to the South Napa earthquake.

The United States Postal Service agreed to halt the demolition of the post office and instead pursue the sale of the building and property.

The United States Postal Service was actually the first one, and we'll get into the preservation covenant because I think the context matters there, to be willing to sell the property with the understanding that it would be preserved and there were certain features identified as part of that preservation.

And so through inspections both from the city's point of view and other groups, Napa County Landmarks was ultimately decided to be the third party that held that covenant to ensure that it is both preserved, rehabilitated, and maintained in perpetuity.

So in 2017, with additional options to sell to sell the property, and probably no luck at that time, the applicant and the current property owner decided to purchase the property in 2017 and then finally executed the preservation covenant with Napa County landmarks.

While some of these items through the agreement of purchase and sale agreement of parking lots are not within your purview, it still helps build the base of the prior entitlements.

But so in 2017, there was initially a purchase and sale agreement of the parking lot generally off of Randolph Street, that will refer to as the mixed-use redevelopment project for the purpose of the conversations.

But in 2018, City Council approved PL 17090, which consisted of 163 hotel rooms, a mechanized garage across the street in the current city parking lot, but it also included Zeller's hardware parcel as part of the project.

It's important to note that that parcel is no longer part of the project.

While it's not within your purview, it's just important to understand because there are some historic guidelines that were applicable to that Zellers hardware parcel, not the building itself, but its relation to the first Presbyterian church across the way.

Through 2019 into 2021, up to generally 2025, there were additional amendments to the development agreement that was executed, and then further amendments to that purchase and sell agreement.

So some extensions otherwise, some amendments.

But in 2025, July 3rd of 2025, the applicant resubmitted the project in front of you today.

So like I said, and I'll keep repeating context is important here.

So the preservation covenant was initially drafted by the US Postal Service.

That was kind of kind of the primary reason why they decided to ultimately sell it is with the understanding that it would be preserved in perpetuity.

While the city is not a party to that covenant, it's still important to understand that's kind of the basis of certain reference materials.

Knappa County landmark so graciously is a party to that covenant with uh the property owner.

The overall project, just for basis of understanding, both is the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the post office building, but the post office redevelopment generally is the building and the new additions you see that straddle the post office building.

So that would be a five-story upper upscale hotel with up to 120 hotel rooms, other amenities, including rooftop, cafe, and bar, restaurant, event, and meeting spaces.

Mixed-use development across the street is the redevelopment of the parking lot parcel, five-story building with up to 37 four-cell hotel units.

Those units generally were referred to branded residential in the past because they could be used as residential, but because of the transient nature of them, both the planning commission and city council and opine that those are commercial.

There's opportunities for transient revenue, so they are four cell or being redefined through this effort as four-cell hotel units.

That also integrates three of the existing condominium units within the adjacent Young building and on-site parking facilities and retail on the ground level.

It's important to note that the parking facilities that are provided are within the other building because I think the circulation pattern discussion that we'll get into in a little bit is important as to not take from the presence of the post office building.

But for the key components of the certificate of appropriateness in front of you tonight is maintenance and treatment of those character defining features that are probably the most important, but how that new addition fits into the context as well.

So all those character-defining features, it was attachment three of the agenda and of the report, and the interior features, it's important to note because those features were part of a public building at the time.

So there's significance there, and external spatial characteristics, both prominent in the architectural style as well as the civic presence of the building.

Within that retained historic portion of the building would be preserved, protected, repaired, or reconstructed using in-kind materials where deterioration is too severe for retention.

So if you look into attachment three, there's recommendations for treatment of those character defining features.

The applicant's architect through preservation architecture can generally get into more detail, but as a draft condition in the resolution, staff's recommending that those treatment of those materials be incorporated into the construction processes to ensure that both the preservation and rehabilitation of those materials meet the Secretary of Interior Standards.

So a big notable difference between what was previously considered, although there was never a certificate of appropriateness generally considered for the plans, but there were historic guidelines established with it, is that the massing and the general front facade of the building were pulled back to make sure that the standing presence is the contributing features of the historic post office building.

So generally, those walls kind of sit in line slightly behind where the lobby and portion of the exterior that are defining meet as to not distract from at all.

So the depth of that historic lobby remains a primary visual element of the structure.

One notable feature though is the glass curtain walls that extend from the ground level up to the top, not to the top floor overall, but the top of that facade to distinguish and separate the primary facade of that post office with the new addition and the new materials that are used both to the west and to the east as you get further into those wings.

It allows some of that historic detail, both in the masonry terracotta to remain clearly expressed.

And then those exterior materials, otherwise, as part of the hotel balconies and the facade both extending to the east and west, try to complement without distracting the the presence of the post office building.

And I'll let the architects team get into further detail of why the material selection is the way it is.

It's important to understand that planning commission also found an interest in both the materials that were proposed and made motions to city council that those materials be incorporated.

That's not to say that through your purview that you agree or disagree, it's just important for context.

And then the upper story step stepbacks are stepped back from that retain facade to reduce the apparent height of the structure.

So while it is tall and overall, so it kind of that cap of the ceiling of the highest point is no greater than 75 feet.

It's actually like six inches to a foot and a half below, and the mixed-use buildings a few feet below.

Because of the stepbacks, it seems like less of a less of a presence distracting from the post office building.

This is the site plan here in front of you, where it shows the overall project, both the historic lobby and the hotel.

An aerial view of how both the post office redevelopment and the way we're defining it and referencing it here tonight, and the mixed use development sit in context with the other surroundings.

Those character defining features are generally split into three categories: both exterior, interior, external spatial characteristics, the exterior defining features of seven piers topped by a terracotta capital stylized floral motif, cornice extending from the roof line formed of terracotta rams and cows' heads.

Ornament that consists of decorative brickwork, terracotta panels, and a geometric motif, bronze and milk glass urn shape light fixtures adjacent to the entryways with granite bases, large terracotta panel containing art deco eagle above each door, monolithic steel sash windows on the main facade, front granite steps, an area away with granite plants and bases and ornamental iron railings and carved granite cornerstone.

Carved art deco wood lentils over the service counter and the original brass frame bulletin boards.

One important area of notable difference between the preservation covenant, some of the nomination forms, and the character-defining features in front of you tonight is that those original cast bronze drop lights were removed because it was determined that those lights were installed in 1966 and are not original to the structure.

While that is notable, there's also a standard for you to consider standard four of the standards for rehabilitation that certain changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right can also be retained and preserved.

I'm not saying that that's the finding that you need to make, but generally changes can also be historic.

And so I would ask you that you asked probably the preservation architect, probably in the reasoning of the finding of why it's not original in a resource.

But then the external spatial characteristics, so the projected central area flanked by two recessed wings, and some of that simple geometry of the buildings massing.

Now let's get into the pictures, which are a little bit more entertaining.

So the character defined features, but that simple geometry that we previously talked about.

The projected central area flanked by two recessed wings, so use the darker green to identify that central area with the recess wings and kind of the lighter green.

Seven piers topped by terracotta capital and a stylized flora motif.

That cornice that's extending from the roof line.

Here's an up-close image of what that looks like in detail.

The ornament that consists of some decorative brickwork and terracotta panels in a geometric motif.

The bronze and milk glass urn-shaped light fixtures adjacent to the entryways.

So it looks like up close.

The large terracotta panel containing the art deco eagle above each door, generally what it still looks like up close, monolithic windows in the front facade, the front granite steps and area away with granite plants and bases and ornamental iron railings.

And then that carved granite cornerstone.

Then we get into the interiors, the decorative terrazzo floor, marble wainscotting that was substantially damaged in the earthquake, the raised plaster ceiling ornamental plaster panel with the geometric floral pattern at each end of the central frieze, the raised and painted plaster ceiling and walls, the wood lintels over the service counter, and the original brass frame bulletin boards.

Now it's important to understand what the new addition and how the new addition sits into the preservation of the post office and the materials that were selected.

So I won't get into details over the actual features and let the architect get into some of those details, but just understand that the north facade of the primary presence of the of the post office building, south facade, west and east facade of the post office redevelopment.

And then the mezzanine floor plan that shows kind of the um the details along the ceiling.

Because the brand of the hotel generally has not been decided yet.

So there is some fluctuation in space, but the primary features of the floor plan of the event space, of the restaurant, and the lobby in the center will generally be the same.

So that any changes will be in substantial conformance to what you see here, but understand this is a concept, and that sometimes the back of house does change a little bit.

This is the basement, the entrance where it shows the primary portion of that lobby being maintained, and the building surrounding that.

Second level, third level, fourth, fifth, and then the rooftop sits above.

And then showing this for context only, the mixed use development uses similar materials, both the north facade, south facade, west, and east.

The planning commission did hold a special meeting on June 30th, 2026 to consider recommendation with the other entitlements that are previously listed to the city council.

The planning commission generally had a few discussion points, but the south-facing facade, the mixed-use development building parking requirements, overall design and materials for the new addition of the post office redevelopment, the development agreement and proposed public improvements.

Planning commission ultimately made multiple motions recommending city council approved the project with additional recommendations related to the materials, the design of the south facing facade, and the parking requirements.

With that, staff is prepared a CEQA document and addendum to the downtown specific plan EIR.

And in your consideration or your recommendation to City Council, you will need to establish these findings and whether you approve or deny of the certificate of appropriateness in there in your recommendation to city council to do so.

With that, that concludes my presentation and staff recommends that the CHC forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt a resolution approving pursuant to a section 15168 analysis, an addendum to the downtown Napa specific plan programmatic EIR, and alternatively to the CEQA guidelines section 15332 categorical exemption or class 32.

And then adopt a resolution approving a certificate of appropriateness and determine that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed and addressed by our prior sequa action as documented in the addendum for the Franklin Station 2 project.

The applicants team, both architects here from Bar Architects and Preservation Architects.

So we're that concludes my presentation.

Happy to take any questions you have at this time.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

As usual.

If you have any questions specifically directed to staff, please begin those.

And if not, we can move on.

At this time, does do any commissioners have questions for staff?

I do not.

No, I don't.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

At this time, we're asking if the applicant uh would like to provide a presentation.

And if so, please come forward and state your name and address actually, and then away you go.

Thanks.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh Chair.

My name is Jeff Dodd.

I live at 264 Franklin Street.

I'm a land use attorney here in town at Coblins Patch Duffy and Bass.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant team.

Here with me is David Oliver, our hospitality operational expert.

To the extent there are any questions on that end.

You've all met David.

I'm here from Bar Architects, Jim Brenza and Earl Wilson also here, our historic architect, Mark Holberg from Preservation Architects.

This has been an incredible team effort.

I know many of you here were uh at the planning commission hearing, so uh saw that in action, and then we just saw how remarkable you are, writer.

Sorry, not to me be too sappy, but it's very impressive.

I think uh how writers have been able to really grasp the so much information here.

There's so much detail, and we're just really here focused on the historic preservation.

So I do want to recognize you, Ryder, and then of course, uh Molly Radigan, who's been uh shown incredible leadership here in bringing everybody together to get this project uh to public hearing and before the public.

So at its core, this project is very much it's about saving the historic uh post office.

Uh chair, you mentioned it's the local landmark, it's on the historic uh register of places.

Um, and it's a legacy clearly that the community wants to protect.

The one challenge as part of that, you know, ensuring that protection is um it's just a very, very difficult project.

There is uh it's no secret.

Uh, this is the second time that this project has come before this commission, come for the planning commission and city council.

It's uh that shouldn't be it should be pretty good evidence of uh that it's a difficult thing to get done, and uh it's also I wouldn't say any secret to this commission, the challenges of doing a historic preservation project, especially of this magnitude uh when you consider that you're starting off at a 10 to 13 million dollar hole is under today's uh construction estimates that David has been updating that weekly just to make sure that we're we're not we're staying at that level.

Um but that is just before that's before you get to to new construction that's really to talking about the making the building seismically safe uh and ensuring that we can have this historic uh relic that everybody can see for a hundred years from now.

So um I want to say thanks for taking the time.

We're very honored to hear.

I'm gonna let the experts speak, of course.

I'm just gonna step a step aside.

But um, you know, we've all been excited for this moment because it's very rare.

You know, we do presentations.

I've done presentations in city councils and planning commissions and so on.

It's it's so cool to be in front of experts who really know this stuff.

Um I just I I find that very, very rare to have that that level of expertise that you all have and the know-how.

I have personal antidotes on all of you on on all the stuff that I know you guys have done.

Karen, I saw you two weeks ago.

I was in your your front yard, and then you were selling the square nails from the the horror house, uh, which is pretty impressive.

So um anywho.

Um thank you very much.

We're really excited to be here for you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

And uh staff and uh kudos.

A tough act to follow, as a matter of fact.

I'm I'm Mark Holbert.

I reside at 1315 Walnut Street in Berkeley.

I'm principal of the firm preservation architecture, um, and has been a long endeavor.

Some of us have been together on this this whole process, and myself included, not quite as long as the chair, but almost, and um, and you know, yet it, you know, I can say having uh helped and and assisted throughout this process, you know, that the the long duration has clear benefits, and I think that is that it's a careful and and really thoughtful rehabilitation and and additions at this point in time.

So I I sure hope and actually trust that you'll join us in supporting this project.

Um, nonetheless, the duration of it has its um challenges.

It's it really does go without saying that this is you know first and foremost a a rescue operation, right?

It is, and so we are challenged together to move this forward and and to rescue this wonderful building.

Um in fact, to save our historic post office building.

And again, I'm gonna turn to staff expressions here, by quoting some of the salient points that is made in the staff report that the post office building is one of the city's most significant historic resources with deep personal meaning, and adding that um reinvestment in historic structures can strengthen and hand and enhance Napa.

Uh the went the other way.

Preservation covenant.

We've discussed here with uh Napa County Landmark stewardship.

It's definitely a partnership, um, to work towards this goal here of rehabilitating this building and not to interrupt you, but if it's any assistance, I'm gonna put minimize and maximize it again because you had different size.

Is there other on here?

This is where the historic architect actually burns the machine dump and uh sort of minimize that that's full screen.

I see, okay.

Am I controlling that?

You can tell me when the it might so we can see the full screen.

Is that best to have you?

Okay, let's do that.

Like I said, historic architect burns the machine up.

Okay.

Um Pascal can go on from there, Ryder.

Um based on um based on the covenant and on the on this consultation and and um with CHC support.

The 2018 historic resource design guidelines were adopted, and they are obviously uh a driver for all of us.

Next, please.

They've established as as Ryder has as carefully outlined.

They've established exterior and interior parameters, right?

Of of retention and of rehabilitation, and um, as summarized in in the in the lengthier section of our submittal, uh, which has materials and conditions assessments to the initial ones.

Um there isn't an inordinate amount of work to be done on this on the front of this building.

And it's certainly a a substantial part of how we arrived at the at the final character defining features back in 2018 because of the depth of the work that is necessitated.

You can go on, please.

Um as as again as uh staff has has outlined, you have historic forms, um, the front of the resource, front and center, front and center of the resource, front and center of the project.

Onwards.

And and and then here I'll just um in fact you can pass through this one, Roger, and we'll go on to the next.

These you've seen um uh staff has has shown these, so I'll stop at a couple of them.

It really does outline the historic forms and elements at hand.

Um go on to the next one, and there's additional forms.

I won't um belabor that at the moment.

Um the obviously stoic and great piers that are on the front of this building, truly distinctive and unique.

Next, please.

Some of these I'd like to stop at.

I'd like to stop here to talk about it uh obviously important issue to all of us, which is salvage.

Um the the cornice is a highly distinctive characteristic of this building.

Uh, we are not retaining this entire building.

There will be features that will be removed, um, a good chunk of which we're gonna need because we need real materials and and we don't know to what extent the ones we have are are healthy.

We know a lot of the brickwork is not, we also know a lot of the cast ornamentation is not.

So, first and foremost, we need to mine this building for our own per restoration purposes, working with uh Napa County Landmarks as stewards.

We will devise a a uh salvage plan.

We'll identify uh salvage contractors, bona fide salvage contractors to work with to um to develop and and and execute that salvage plan.

But I wanted to stop at this particular slide because of the importance of that cornice and and uh it will not go to waste.

That is that is absolutely for certain.

Proceed, please.

Some of the smaller elements which are given.

I I can also mention um because I know it's a factor the in the the post office signage has it cannot be retained, it has been deemed by the federal government that it has to be removed.

So that's not a that's not a character defining feature, and it will not be remain on this building.

That's my understanding as as we proceed.

Next, please.

The lanterns, of course, very distinctive cast lanterns at the entrances and onwards.

And the ornamental panels.

Um I think one we passed by was the the front windows.

I wanted to comment on the front windows, which are steel sash windows.

These are unique steel sash windows to this building.

The side windows that are being removed are not the same as these front windows.

So we don't have the uh liberty of mining some of the existing building parts for these windows, however, they are steel sash and and steel sash windows have uh great durability.

So uh my hope is when we get to these we will be able to preserve them, restore them, um, and they are also replaceable in kind.

So that to the extent we need to, we can match them exactly.

We have windows um manufacturers locally who can do that.

Onwards, what else?

Ah, there they are.

I thought they were behind there that those those frontward steel sash windows, they're buried behind plywood at the moment, but again, they're they're steel sash.

Next slide, please.

I'll I'll pass it on here to our our architects to to um discuss some of the features of this project, and before doing so, I do want to at least conclude by saying that obviously this building has its rehabilitation, we'll have clear public benefits, and and one of it is that hotel the reuse of a historic building for a hotel is ideal because it brings a uh use where the public can participate.

They can enter this building, they can participate in this building.

It is it is really a semi-public building as a hotel use, so it is it on to uh Pearl.

I think you're gonna jump up.

Thank you, Mark.

Um I realize we're we're running short on time, so I'm I'll make this very quick.

Um but uh you know, this is just an incredibly important project to for myself and for our firm uh to be able to work on, and so we're very honored.

Um, take your time.

This is important for us to hear.

Okay, please thank you.

Get across what you'd like to.

You know, this is about revering and respecting the existing building, and and the building uh as a centerpiece, preserving the the existing building uh and and making it the feature, and so all those uh uh elements that were described of setting the buildings back, um revealing the post office with the glass elements, um, and and bringing in materials and proportion and design that's ultimately about revering and respecting the existing building.

Um so you know uh my team internally, when we started this project, I I said uh I want to be able to write a white paper on how to do the best um addition to a historic building.

And we, you know, we've we've had lots of work in the Presidio over the years, um and it is about distinguishing from the existing building, but the very best projects also bring in an element of continuity over time and um relate to the existing building and to the context within it sits within which this building sits in Napa.

And so uh we've tried to do that.

Uh we've with the proportions, we've tried to be um respectful that that the existing building is really the monumental building, and that um we want to be somewhat delicate and and careful with the proportions, particularly as it meets the ground.

Um and that worked very well with the uh the aspect of this this notion that that it's really activating this building is also activating the street.

I think uh the next slide um, you know, I think I spoke to some of the elements but uh uh of the architecture um differentiating, preserving, um, but you know, this this uh also puts this new design also puts the hotel lobby in the place uh in the location of the existing historic lobby.

And and so this is um, as Mark mentioned, the hotel use is particularly um lends itself well to uh a historic restoration like this because the public gets to enjoy uh and can come into the building and enjoy the building, both both locals and visitors can come in and and so we've set this up as the centerpiece of the of the hotel.

That that really concludes presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the owners uh side?

Very good.

Thank you.

Um at this time I'd like to open it up for the commission um to ask any questions they may have to the applicant at this time, and please uh how about Commissioner Wesson?

Let's begin.

Well, first I'm gonna start at the preservation covenant because without that, we kind of wouldn't be sitting here today.

And part the part about that that I would really like to see some uh tightening up of that is the exhibit A.

What was recorded with the title company is only the one page of the amendment.

And it doesn't go beyond that, and you would probably have to search more records.

And so I would really like to see all the information joined together in an official kind of way that in the references that on the plans to what is listed in the preservation covenant be obvious, and that you don't have to go searching for this amendment detail, and that that is part of an addition to the exhibit A, or makes it more uh official, and that I probably would be the uh the owner would work with uh Napa County landmarks, and there might be some official wording on that that would complete this document and make it very clear.

Okay, very good.

Yes.

Do you have any other questions or thoughts?

I have some more, yes.

Very good.

Please continue.

Okay.

Um the second one is um to create a historic features inventory and treatment plan.

I know there is a list of character defining um features, both that are sort of referred to in the preservation covenant as well as the national register nomination, but I would like those to be again tightened up, and that each one of these items uh be photographed, and also the important part is what will happen to them.

I know there's some reference in the materials that we're that state loosely that we'll try and salvage this or maybe have a reuse, but I would really like to see that tightened up so we know what is going to happen to all of these parts, and not just the parts that are listed in um the official list, but things that contribute to the story of the post office, like the walk-in safes that are in the building.

That's part of the story.

What's gonna happen to those and um and to document them?

And then once you have all this information, we have this is my next one, uh, have a permanent archival record.

That would be the architectural plans, this would be also the inventory I just discussed about, um photographs, um, anything that's relevant to the story, the preservation, the history of the post office, be um either sent to a third party or be held by the planning department that say um uh the historical society could request a copy for their um our archives, and that so in the future 50 years, a hundred years, and we're all gone, somebody will have that all that information, what the story was, what kind of hard questions that we asked here today that we did the right thing, we did everything we could, and you know, we documented what was there, and there's really no questions left.

Now, Mark, you just said um a bit ago about the signage, the United States Post Office across the front, and um I would love to see that remain because that is the defining part about this building.

Somebody looking at the building, you know, tourists from out of town, they may say, Oh, was that a bank?

Was that a school?

Was that at some other kind of civic building?

This is the title of the story of this building, is that that signage up there, and I would like to see everything that can pay possibly be done to retain that um part, the title of this story of this building.

Um I know there might be some information out there floating around that maybe the US Postal Service didn't want it there, but maybe we can change their mind because there are other post offices that are historic posts that are not post offices anymore that still retain their signage of the United States Post Office.

The um next one number five is the historic mailboxes.

I know that's on the list, but I would like to see those remain in place in the lobby, because that's part of the story.

That's where the community went, and um for almost a hundred years and generations, they got their mail.

It's part of the whole story of the post office, because what's the post office without mailboxes?

Uh number six is the clear story windows and the wood freeze and the relationship that they have to each other.

Those clear story windows define the lobby, and that's one thing that we are talking about preserving is that lobby section.

And uh they work well together.

I know there might have to be some modifications, but on the whole, I really would love to see that their relationship stays because that defines that space.

Um just as a side note, I wondered if you've thought about a time capsule that maybe we could you would collect relevant information to the project and be opened in 50 or uh 100 years, or maybe even 57 years, which would be the 150th anniversary of the building of the US post office, and that's it.

Um just go ahead and say for clarity, um, I don't know if it's more appropriate to maybe ask questions of the applicants team, open it up for public comment, and then maybe get into the deliberation.

Yes, I thought that we're gonna be more question-like, so I think these are considerations, um, but I appreciate that, and we'll um keep asking the questions here, and then we'll open up for public comment.

And that's probably more what we can come into discussion and see if uh the applicants may be able to answer some of those questions.

So uh does Commissioner um do other commissioners have any questions at this time?

I mean, I'm on my left if Commissioner Rasmussen.

Not at this time, very good.

I I do have questions.

Great Commissioner Tuwika.

Vice Chair.

Thank you.

Uh I'm looking at attachment three, the interior, the significant historic interior features.

Um, curious as to why uh I know Karen mentioned the um mailboxes, and I don't see those on this list of significant interior features as well as the clear story windows and the lamps, the the uh hanging lamps that are in that lobby.

Was there a reason they were excluded from the significant features?

Thank you.

Uh uh take that in in reverse the the lamps themselves that came up.

I mean, what they were identified.

I mean, they were identified in the National Register nomination, and then in the follow-up uh revision to the National Register nomination as cast bronze hanging, original cast bronze hanging lamps.

And then on quite honestly, I I looked at those fixtures and I thought they don't look cast anything, as a matter of fact.

And in fact, we found drawings on them from 1966.

They happen to be acrylic and plated steel, which which is very much the way they look.

I mean, obviously we have some cast lighting on this building, and it is highly distinctive.

And had there been original lights in here that had features like that, they would assuredly have stuck around, but they didn't.

They weren't original cast interior lights.

They were added in 1966.

So I saw no clear benefit to those fixtures, not original and not what they were identified as.

A focus is very important for all of us.

I hope that helps.

Okay, just to follow up on that.

So is it maybe your intent to remove the lamps and replace them?

Uh, yes, I mean, I think that's our our well, I shouldn't say that.

I mean, I I can say that they have been uh identified as non non-original, not cast on not cast, and so taken we've not revised the um amendment.

We we simply note that and take it out of our interior features.

It does give us the liberty of doing something better there, as a matter of fact, and something more, you know, fitting to that space as a matter of fact.

Have we gotten there?

No, we have not gotten there.

So, were you able to do any research?

Are there any photos through the Napa County Historical Society that could take you in that lobby to that era?

No, but we can look at it.

I mean, did you try did you go down that path?

I assume you did.

Again, we've we've really worked on this for a long time.

Um, the we and we have the original drawings.

I mean, so we can look at the original drawings and we can look at the 19.

There's a full set of 1966 electrical drawings.

So that's we can look at those drawings and see what they present for us.

The original lobby does not appear to have had hanging lanterns at all.

There was no hanging lanterns in that.

I how it was lit, I am not aware how it was lit, but it was not lit with hanging lanterns.

The hanging lanterns were which seem logical in their in their positions, were were added in 66 when there was no lighting in that in that location, in those locations.

So that's and and I I see no earlier photographs of those, or I found no earlier photographs of those.

It would be a private stash thing somebody has some good images, but we we have found nothing.

And again, we've been involved for almost 10 years at this point in time.

So the consideration is not that you wouldn't necessarily put light fixtures back in the some same location, but they may not be those ones from or it is possible a design decision would not to be to put back those ones from the 60s.

Yeah, uh you know, it's possible.

I mean, you know, we we haven't gone fully down that path.

I mean, it's interesting to look at the original drawings and and see that you know, the cast or the cast ornamental lanterns at the front of the building up on the walls on the screen right now, they they were a federal standard, of course.

They weren't designed by you know the local architectural firm, they were a federal standard they're cited as a federal standard um and there would have been a federal standard if there had been other cast ornamental fixtures in this building and they would have been cited as a federal standard so we're quite clear they weren't I mean it m to me as a you know we're we're we're making changes to this building we're we're gonna make positive changes to this building haven't gone down the lighting design path but it's clearly an opportunity and again I looked at these as a you know experienced preservation architect work on a lot of buildings a lot of historic buildings even of this era working on some 193 federal buildings right now as we speak and you know there's some there's some real opportunity here to do to do something really nice I mean the lobby really deserves that and and honestly the acrylic and steel plated fixtures are not very nice they really aren't you know so I think the com the question too was about even though it's on page 12 of attachment three uh the picture shows the mailboxes it does not talk about the historic interior feature per se um so the question I think from both commissioners is there's a you know this was a post office of course a lobby is a lobby but uh a different use is also the in play so the consideration is um how can these mailboxes potentially be incorporated and is there a modern day use since we don't even you keep use keys anymore could everyone have a QR code no but uh I guess the question is where is this in a can in the consideration because that was a significant part of the lobby of which we are saving uh that's pretty much what we're the intention of the design is to save this lobby which extends into the hotel lobby so I think um maybe that's a question.

I mean I totally respect that and I I you know we're w we have a salvage plan and you know there's there's many other features right that we have yet to address and and and of course determine their condition with you know that all a lot of that right there's a lot of things that will fall into the salvage plan there's no way we're not going to do a thorough salvage plan.

In fact we have at least from an historic materials perspective dealt with the materials and conditions summary you have that in your packet right and and at some level of detail as we initiate that that process and we have outlined you know selective demolition specifications.

I mean there's this is in progress and we you know we're putting the of course the horse before the cart right but I think it's tough uh the horse before the cart right because you're at 50 percent but what the commission here is dealing with is a preservation of a portion of this whole structure which is necessary because of its structural lack of integrity uh but um and I think just to cut to the question I and I don't want to speak for the my fellow commissioners but um and I couldn't agree more that this is an excellent change of use for a hotel you see the McMinman hotels all over Oregon and other historic hotels that have been adapted and reused from other buildings but this significance in this structure is that it was a post office and so the question is I think that I'm hearing is how will the team go forward thinking about something as significant as the the the postal the boxes and it's it I don't think it's a deal breaker.

I think it's more that it's a consideration because there is so much as uh the architects team mentioned that there is a uh component of this that is local serving and the history of that and the compassion and passion to preserve this building but a new use as a hotel can can change how uh one looks at the you reuse of these postal boxes.

And we're we're here to and welcome your comments and questions.

I mean, I will I can say that we will proceed as carefully as we've gone to date and I think you know, and I don't want to say that I spoke for uh commissioner two weeka.

So I just to finish my I guess it's a more of a comment as well as a question.

It's just that in my opinion uh and and my failing about this lobby, I think it's very important that all of the features that can be preserved are preserved, including the mailboxes, and they don't have to be in use, it just can be a a feature that shows the error of this building, and even the area where the the sales were where the people would come to do their postal business, if that could be utilized as say the check-in or something for the hotel, or or even if it has to be moved, but to to the the feeling and this the how it appears and how it functions be maintained so that people do get a sense that it was a post office lobby and not something that's drastically changed with your project.

Commissioners, David Oliver, uh 275 St.

Andrews Drive, Napa, California.

Thank you.

Uh first of all, thanks for touring with me over the last week on such short notice.

And um I I appreciate all the time you took and the passion you have for this post office and building.

Um I hope you gathered from my perspective, this is more than just a building and materials.

It's it's it's an experience that has been part of a lot of people's lives, and we want to carry that forward.

Um so when we talk talk about post office boxes, um, we will save those, and we will place them, if not in the current location, someplace where it ideally it'll be very tactile or in front of uh in in front of mind.

Um we talked a little bit, uh some of us about how in the current configuration are a little bit in a transition zone, and that there might be a better location to uh tell the story of this being a post office.

We just don't know that right now.

Um but clearly uh the whole purpose here is to let the post office speak, let the history speak um for not only visitors but locals to remember their experiences here.

So not only those post office boxes, but as some of you saw, we actually have some extra post office boxes down in the basement, and we're gonna find a home for those.

One where people can interact with them ideally.

That the idea is that we're saving a uh fraction, you know, let's say less than a third portion of this building, and a lot of that was the public space, the heart of the you know, congregation and community.

So I think the question is, and what Commissioner Wesson also said is documenting this, consider the locational importance and working within the new use and how how can that play out.

I think that's a question for all of us, because there are so many people still uh around that that post office was a major community meeting space.

I mean, the beauty of that compared to the one on Trancas was uh a joy to uh go and run into humanity and get your mail.

So I think that's I think that's some of the emotions then questions is how is that gonna work with the new uses uh so that's viable and and in today's standards, but you know, keeping some of these in place.

Uh so it's a difficult question, I know.

Right, and and I wish I had the answer for you.

I I don't I do know that we we've been very thoughtful through this process, um, VAR in particular wanted to make sure that the flow uh was exactly the same as when the post office operated, you were right, you will be arriving through the same doors, departing through the same doors as you enter and leave the the hotel um in some ways in some ways it'll be even better because now I have a larger lobby for people to sit congregate and enjoy.

Maybe some of them go down in the speakeasy where you get your table you go anyway but that gets that's definitely the cart before the horse answer that.

Commissioner Toika was there additional uh questions not at this time I'll let the other commission is comment and I may have some comments later on as the process involves here.

Of course um Commissioner McKinney do you have any questions at this time?

I do and it's um regarding the new building um I'm interested in the materials being used for the portion of the building directly behind the post office um for the balcony and um do you have a picture of that Bonnie chance?

Um to my eye I find the balcony to be a distraction to the building itself and I'm not sure if the material that's being used um is contributing to that sort of grayed outlook so I just liked someone to speak to that.

Yes thank you um Earl Wilson uh principal with BAR architects I may not have given my name and um and my address uh we're at 77 Geary Street downtown San Francisco Yeah we this actually was uh subject of considerable study in our office um we we went through lots of iterations um looking at various materials various compositions um but we one of the things that we know um from just design over over time is that this this notion of shadow um tends to make things recede and as we looked at different options um the balcony option um produces shadow and so I think you see it in this elevation but you also see it in the renderings um that that um the combination of the darker material and the shadow um causes that area to recede and and then the the brickwork um where we're we're on the on the flanking wings of the hotel um you know will be highlighted um and that that brickwork is intended to not um replicate or imitate the post office but to relate in some way to the post office um and again this notion of continuity over time and and bringing in uh a kind of harmony of materials to the building no I understand the principle but to me it's still if you consider if lights are on in those rooms excuse me um it just reads as a dark band the whole thing does not recede um anyway I just I find it distracting from the actual post office itself is my comment okay thank you thank you were there any other uh materials other this is the great consideration that led you to that material.

Is that there were other materials you were reviewing?

Is that that's my question.

The the great consideration was the post office remaining the feature um the building receding and being quiet.

Um, you know, and I know it's a subjective matter, you know, everyone has a different opinion, but but we you know the it it was not just me, it was vetting it amongst our team uh in the office and and and our and and in our office and looking at multiple um multiple options.

Uh but yes, the overriding consideration is again this notion of revere and respect the historic post office and really let the post office be the feature.

So uh page sixty-eight and attachment three, that's kind of what uh I it seems this recession that receding that the the shadow more or less is that it's difficult because renderings are renderings, but the idea is that it's a difference of material, and by that the color is recessive to that of the um prominent post office, and the flanking buildings is that the idea, the intention.

Okay, yeah.

Which you can see more in that uh than you can on some of the straight elevations.

Page page sixty-eight, I think is getting to the point of what he's talking about, but okay, that's helpful, yeah.

If you go to attachment four of the plans sheet A4, um, some of you have it printed, some of you may not, actually identifies the specific materials, and you can see it a little bit closer up.

Yes.

So I think those materials in question, and correct me if I'm wrong, anodized metal, the champagne bronze, and then some of the perforated metal screen generally.

Yep.

Bronze.

Okay.

All right.

Oh, there you go.

Okay.

Um were there other questions at this time for the applicant?

Uh okay.

I had a a few questions.

Um just very quickly, and I just would like to hear it from the architect.

I know that this structure is incredibly unstable structurally, and um I know there was a for uh an iteration from years ago, ten years ago in the design.

How did you come?

And I had some good conversation with David about this.

Where was the final consideration for the massing, the amount that you would save for the post office?

And was there ever a consideration?

And it's tough because where do you end it, you know?

Where does it where do you start?

Where do you end?

And especially for um massing and um proportions.

Where would was there ever a consideration to take it further back than the lobby?

And could it financially even have occurred?

I don't know if it could based on the numbers you need for the hotel rooms.

So I was just curious.

Was it always an all stop at the uh lobby only?

If that makes sense.

Yeah, absolutely.

And um, you know, we looked through all the history, there was there were lots of uh iterations we saw, you know, from your previous office as well as the other architect.

Um we received everything um and and reviewed everything, and then we never take things for granted.

We always, you know, we want to start in a way based on that information, um, with our own thoughts on on this, and we did do studies of how to maybe incorporate the existing building, but it was um this is just very disruptive given the program um that we were trying to fit.

In fact, it did not work, um, and so we could not get it to work and ultimately um the best plans were the plans that allowed us to use that existing space as the lobby, the arrival point, as David was saying, um, to circulate through the building the way people circulated at one time, and you know, we would love to keep the um the boxes.

Uh they're beautiful.

They're part of the post office experience and they're part of the story.

Um, but you know, we again we have to sort of take all things into consideration.

We're still very early in design.

Um, but to really make that existing building work well and work in the future as a hotel, carrying those walls throughout uh was just it just did not work.

It cuts cuts things off from um back of house functions.

Um we want to make connections to First Street, I mean not to First Street, but to Randolph with the public space.

We think this this new plan is really wonderful in the way that the lobby can connect down to first street and and bring activity um from first street into the hotel.

Um the public can engage with the building, can engage with the retail and the and the restaurant on the corner and flow into the building or from the building down to first street.

Um those walls and all would have they were very disruptive to being able to do that.

So functionally it really didn't work, and we did look at it.

Yeah, I didn't necessarily mean the entire structure, but maybe half, you know, just but that who knows structurally how that would have even worked at all.

So yeah, just curious.

And making those as wonderful as we can.

Yep.

I think there's questions from all commissioners, and I've heard um uh their concerns and thoughts, and I've heard uh answers.

I think the biggest question for all of us, and it may be for Mr.

Holbert, that um not that you get into a HABS kind of review, which you've already like historic American building survey, I talked to David about it, but I think the question is, and and we don't want to do the cart before the horse, but I think you are are you willing to consider doing some further true documentation that really gets into some of these items that are part of the lobby, part of the rest of the structure that are documented.

I think that's part of the discussion about reuse, recycle, retain.

I think the question is how do we know?

Is the plan to document some of these things more specifically?

I guess as a part of what you already have.

And I think David might be able to talk about that more than just design features because this is what we talked about, which was great that some of these historic pieces could be then part of the bigger uh design down the road, once interiors and such.

So I think the question is, and that's probably a discussion with Napa County Landmarks and the Covenant as well.

How can you what is the plan to sort of document and protect those things and make them a part of this thought process before you go on to the next 50%?

If that makes sense, that makes sense.

Um I'm not oh let me phrase that.

And it's difficult to know because like we discussed, you don't know where all these bits can go by any means.

I think it's just um a question of not saving every doorknob, as I said to you, but how do we plan for saving these?

How do we document where were they?

You know, not everything's there anymore.

It's all a lot of the things fell fell away with the earthquake, but um some of it, you know, a lot of buildings were documented, these historic uh federal buildings, you know, everything were that project, and not that we're going backwards, but how do we take this forward to do some good documentation?

Maybe it's something that you read later, like you talked about, but how do we as a commission understand how some of these things are documented and viewed and uh preserved?

And is there a third-party like Napa County Landmarks that could help in that regard?

Right.

Um I heard you uh and I agree with you, and we will ratchet up another notch, two notches, whatever, um, within reason to document these things.

I can't remember who who it was when we went down into the basement and looked at the valves and said, well, maybe we can repurpose the valve somehow as artwork.

Um but that's the intention is that uh as said before that we're telling a story wherever appropriate in the interior spaces, and obviously exterior.

Um preservation architecture Mark and uh Christine, Napa County Landmarks, they're the experts on how to do that, and I would I would defer to them, but yes.

Um we we will create a storybook, a catalog, um, will it have everything?

No, but um it would be not only a great reference to put in a maybe in a library, but also to have on site for people to look at.

So if you're coming to visit uh the the Franklin Station hotel um and you're wondering, well, how did it get that name?

Um you can you can flip through some some informative pages.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, I appreciate that.

Um I think right now that's the questions that I have pretty pretty standard, but I think the biggest question is that um a lot of this is uh is a change, and that's where some of this documentation is what people are grappling with, and how do we keep that um documented for future reference?

Uh we have another project that I mentioned to you where a lot of things the the entire structure historic home was completely demolished, somewhat documented, I think, and left on site, and the home is now for sale.

Uh it was programmed to become a bed and breakfast, and a lot of the we were told a lot of these items were documented and put off site and eventually would come back, and it was a very difficult sell, but we believed in that, and totally they are different projects, but I think we're a little bit um uh have a little bit of a effect from this about how these things are documented, uh, noted, um preserved that the ones that should be, then where can the other ones be salvaged and moved onward to a new life?

And I think that's where some of the questions are for us as a commission because this is a jewel piece for the city of Napa and preserving that lobby and that front facade is spectacular, and that's that's the jewel piece that you're reusing for this new use, and so where are the rest of the bits um documented?

So that's the question, and once again, yes, cart before the horse, but I think I guess we're asking, is there a consideration uh now how that's gonna go forward?

And I think my other question is, are is the team willing to work with Napa County Landmarks, and if they're willing to work with the team more specifically on something of this nature?

I'm not saying so detailed as a Habs Hair project, but something they could work with, and I see it as a marketing tool.

I mean, so you know, like books on the Iwani, someday somebody may want to buy that book, but I think the question is are you willing to take that step and work with somebody like Napa County Landmarks?

And I think I'm hearing yes.

So uh anyway, that was my biggest question.

Um are there other questions from the commission?

Because we need to open it up for public comment.

I mean for the for the applicant at this point.

If I may before we get into public comment, but we'll get into more detail later.

Be cautious to to will a third external party to any requirement.

We don't have the enforcement ability to do that.

Thank you.

Feel free to put pressure on to staff.

I'll put some pressure on staff then.

Now that I have some good intel there.

So thank you, staff.

Um at this time, I think that we don't have any other specific questions for the applicant.

So I would like to open this up for uh public comment.

Myra, are there any uh public comment cards that you receive today?

I receive one from Christine French.

Excellent.

Please come forward.

Thank you.

Hi everyone, I'm Christine French, executive director of Napa County Landmarks.

Our address is 1443 Main Street in Napa.

I had a statement prepared, but instead I'm going to address some of your concerns.

I'm the executive director of landmarks.

I've been the director almost three years now.

I want to recognize there are people in this room who helped save the building after the earthquake, and they're here sitting with us.

Quite a few are still on the board at Landmarks.

But in terms of how we're working with the developer, I am a qualified architectural historian in the Secretary of Interior Standards.

I have a master's degree from the University of Virginia, and I did work for Habshair for two years, doing the mitigation documentation for the Library of Congress.

So when you ask, like where are all the pieces going to go, I think what we're doing is we're working closely with the applicant, and as we develop what is the scope of what comes off of the building, what is the condition of the materials that come out, and then we can really determine what the salvage opportunity will be because as things start to come off, we'll see can these be reused?

Do can they be rehomed?

Um and you also asked about documentation.

I know that the building was completely documented at one time, I think for phase one with LIDAR by 3D V DT.

I'm not uh sure who owns those, but we could also do another uh scan of today because I believe those were done quite a bit ago.

That permanent archival record, including photographs, could be housed at the Napa County Historical Society, which is a better place for it.

Landmarks, we can put everything on our website and have our files in the office, but I think that would be a more public place for people to find that information in the next generation.

The history of the post office, I conducted a quite a long history.

I did work with Kara Brunzel, who is also an architectural historian.

We could not find interior photographs of the building from that period.

Doesn't mean they don't exist, but we couldn't find them.

However, I did create a timeline of the building from its construction to today, and that is accompanied by over 20 articles from when the building was completed.

You have in the net in the Napa Valley Register.

So it gives us a big scope of what was there.

There's no description of those interior lanterns, it just says the lighting was magnificent.

So we still haven't figured out exactly what that is.

So I think that we do have an opportunity here.

We are working closely with the applicant, and I think what we can do is keep doing that and then create the community history, which I think is what partly what you're looking for, uh, how it was saved, who built it, where it is now, and then we can document that and hold that at the Historical Society.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comment and time.

Please uh come forward, you there was no other comment.

I apologize.

I did not fill out a comment card, but um just wanted to briefly speak.

Can you state your name and address please?

I believe all of you know me, but you know, for the record, we need to state these things.

I I want to um thank the the um the CHC, all of you, for your passion that you're approaching this, the detail-oriented you know, I think we all have a deep affection for this building.

I've also been, you know, working on involved with it since 2014.

I worked on the you know, National Register update after the earthquake, and you know, it is I guess I basically want to say um, you know, we have our dream of what it was, but we can't focus on that.

We have to focus on what it can be, and and I really appreciate the the vision that the the applicant's team is bringing to this, you know.

I I think it can be something good.

It's not going to be what it was, but you know, um I I think we can look forward to having this, you know, rehabilitate it.

Also, um, if you'll bear with me one little, since we're talking about documentation and um, you know, the history of the building, this was uh put on the National Register in nineteen eighty-five, just two years after it turned 50.

So the the community was very serious about nominating that building.

Uh, but we we do see that nominations from that era are somewhat lacking compared to now.

And um this building is often referred to as a WPA or works progress administration building.

It really is not the WPA was enacted in nineteen thirty-five.

This was constructed in nineteen thirty-three.

So it is depression era, but it was um similar to the Vallejo post office constructed the same year.

This was well underway before Roosevelt was elected.

So, you know, just when we get to that uh detailed documentation, everyone's talking about that.

I just want to uh get that into the uh into the permanent record and and I just wanna say thanks to everybody for trying to get this ball rolling forward.

Thank you very much.

Really appreciate that.

If there's any other public comment I can offer you to come to the ISIS if you prefer, if not I think we can have a motion to close the public comment.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to close the public comment.

Second.

I'll second it.

All in favor?

Aye.

Excellent.

Um are there any other comments from staff or the applicants that you'd like to respond to any of these comments other than working with staff on some of these uh questions and comments that we have at this time?

I've outlined some reoccurring themes, but I don't know after public comment if those change, but I just want to kind of document so it's documentation for salvaging of materials and then records that exist thereafter.

So documenting including how those materials can be or could be used or whether they could be used at all.

Um but then the record of that, so then the it can be utilized for public consumption.

Um there was a topic of permanent archival record, showing the plans, photos, so a little bit more bolster documentation of the building itself.

There was a topic of United States Postal Service signage along the front, and I do want to get out ahead of that one to the city does not have the authority otherwise to use United States Postal Service.

So if there's a movement to make a recommendation to city council, it would come with the understanding that the Postal Service has to give that authority.

To keep it on the building.

To keep it on the building.

And at this time, does the applicant want to remove that from the building?

I forgot to ask that question.

That's the understanding right now.

It will ultimately be removed because there's not the authority to do so.

And what what's been informed to us is that there were pri there's a prior letter requiring that it be removed, not saying that there can't be an ask for more documentation today.

But we can't impose a requirement where we have no authority to maintain that name.

So I just want to make that clear.

If there is a recommendation, it comes with the understanding that the postal service has to give that authority.

The documentation itself could still be subject to the form review and approval of whether it stays or leaves by the community resources and development director.

But the authority lies in the postal service.

Um then so where so how is it worked on other buildings, other postal buildings?

Let's say in Oregon or other places.

The Postal Service gave permission to keep it.

Is that what you're saying?

So we we haven't asked the independent and reviewed the independent ones, but there have been instances and similar to any municipal buildings where authority can be given and authority does.

So we didn't look into the specific examples of that.

Understood.

And I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but it is a case-by-case request, and we would need authority for that to day of today asked.

Would our city attorneys look into that?

Is that I'm just curious because one commissioners or couple have talked about this.

So how would that be discovered or discussed?

And I don't even know if the applicant is even.

It would be documentation straight from the Postal Service of whether that is allowed or not.

I see.

And who's going to inquire?

So we can have the applicant initiate it.

Documentation can then be submitted to the community resources and development director for that discretion otherwise.

Okay.

Does the applicant have a comment on this?

Is that okay if I with our processing?

Please, I think you might have a word on this notion.

Just on the specific topic, um, Jeff Dodd again on behalf of the applicant.

Owner and applicant team really does want to keep this.

There's an understanding that there has been the United States Postal Office.

I think it's a really nice amenity and design feature of the of the post office.

Um there is an understanding that uh developer is not able to keep it up for the reasons we just talked about.

So we're gonna do our best to see uh use our best efforts to work with the post office to keep the sign up and uh in terms of making guarantees that's very difficult, but there is a desire with there's a desire to keep the the signage up.

So you will take it the question is would you work with the community development director and department and staff to look into this?

Absolutely, yes.

Okay, and that you are in favor, highly in favor of retaining it, but uh I don't know if we also need to discuss that if the post office doesn't allow it, what will go there?

That's probably a little I mean, that's something we can discuss.

I think the question is if it's not allowed, then the applicant can work with staff to and I'm assuming you're willing to to uh present a signage package of what's gonna go on this historic facade, and that would also be with Mark, I think's exact discretion as well.

It would be a completely collaborative effort.

I think it would be something that the CHC would like to have information on before if that's legally our within our purview.

I'm not sure.

I don't because that gets into design development, so and that starts getting into the DA and which isn't necessary.

I mean, so uh in plan develop so the really it's the plan development overlay amendments that revise or not to get too far into but revise the processes that occur, and so if it fits within the confines of what is generally been established and reviewed, certain amendments can feed back up through the director, like subsequent amendments.

The form that you're seeing would generally stay the same.

So I I do think if the discussion is to be had and maybe the specific details are not ironed out yet, but if signage is to be considered on the facade and or not can be a discussion, right?

And if it has lighting, because that was a major, you know, backlighting that was a major discussion on a different structure here, historic stone structure, the mandavi, well, whatever.

So I think the the question is how will this come?

What form would this come back to us if the post office does not approve.

I think that's what we're coming to because that is a very historic um piece of this building, and how does it work with the new design?

Like that's a tough question for us to understand how that will kind of change it out.

Kind of changes the story or the title of the story.

But if I mean if the postal service says no, they say no.

So that's the way it is.

And I don't think that's I don't think that's within our design guideline to make a comment on.

I mean, I guess they're saying they'd like to keep it.

So did you have a comment or no?

I was just going to note that the uh the commission's uh purview on this project is to make a recommendation to city council.

So perhaps that could be in our motion as a recommendation.

Your recommendation may relate to uh, you know, in the event that the post office declines to allow the uh name to remain uh what would your recommendation be?

But but uh I guess what I'm saying is uh it's not clear that it could come back to you at that point, but it uh your recommendation going forward could bear on that, right?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, so if if the commission is generally interested, and there's a majority to make a recommendation to council, but I think first we would need to define maybe what some of that language looks like of consideration of United States Post Office signage otherwise, and if not permitted, what considerations could be.

Could that come back to a subcommittee of this commission to make recomm to make recommendations towards what it might be?

I don't know if we're getting too far in the weeds, but this is a pretty big generally could be so ultimately it's your recommendation to city council otherwise.

So it could be, I mean, it there very well could be a finding where you make a recommendation, a motion for council to consider that.

Otherwise, certain subsequent amendments are outlined in the DA.

Certain sign programs generally feed back up to the director as it's drafted, okay.

Does that make sense to the commission at this time?

And it's not inappropriate at this time to, even if you have an idea of establishing what you don't want to see otherwise, no neon.

Exactly.

Sorry.

Did I just say that in my outside voice?

Anyway, I have to be careful in that regard.

Yes.

Sorry, Commissioner McKinney, yes.

My assumption is that there will be the logo of whoever takes over operation of the hotel.

So that's another question is where does that signage go?

And what is it?

So I'm not sure how much control we have over that.

Although I love what we have now and wish it could remain, but I don't think we have a purview on the logo of whoever may be the hotel, nor where that might go necessarily.

I think we have a team that's gonna make a conscious choice on how that works, especially knowing that there is uh a desire to try to keep the United States Post Office, not only by this commission, but by the applicant itself.

So I think we can trust that that's the priority, right?

For the commission for the applicant, and then we see where it goes with the Postal Service, then we have an understanding.

I you know, they don't even have who the hotel uh proof is at this time.

So I can try I mean, I think that we all would hope to see something or at least a subcommittee or the the community of development director with staff is help is is acting in the best interest of this commission and the applicant, does that make this is that where we can put that in a motion?

I think.

Because I do think this is part of the consideration for this very prominent dual front facade.

And that was my was gonna be one of my questions.

If it's not staying, then it really needs to come off of all the drawings and documents going forward because it's it's misleading then because people think it's still going to be there.

So uh that was a question as well for staff I guess.

I don't I don't think it's a total misrepresentation because I think there have been voice that there are efforts to maintain to keep it so I don't think that that is inaccurate.

That's fine.

I'm glad to hear the I think that's a a huge plus for us because I think it's good to hear the applicants are interested in keeping it.

So there that's good.

I did have a question about the signage please.

So if the post office says no and the um architectural team and the owner decide to put Franklin station up there instead what about the next owner they can just how does that carry forward?

So as the code is currently defined um signs generally even for local landmarks are administrative certificate of appropriateness.

So even the plan development overlay where it defines that the director has discretion in the code the director generally does still have that discretion to add signs to a local landmark.

Signage otherwise would need to comply with um I mean because it's within the confines of a certificate of appropriateness the secretary of interior standards because it's still work on a local landmark um but as well as our sign ordinances that exist.

So you're saying it would become it would come before the CHC again is what you're saying or no it's administrative it as it's currently written in the ordinance it's administrative.

Because we had the signage come before us for not only the oh gosh why am I spacing the building that has that that housed Mundavi for a while that came before the CHC that signage as well as the signage for um the beer place downtown sorry I'm spacing it I'm still up in the mountains.

But the Borrell building yes Boreo building and the stone brewery not well it was stone brewery but the one that was just um that put up the outdoor dining on the riverside.

Yes.

Why am I spacing the name anyway sorry but but so those were two things after the fact that became came before the CHC there can still be a recommendation if from a majority of the CHC for council to consider that.

Okay.

And generally staff works off of the the verbal record and meeting minutes otherwise too so that could be well it would have to it would have to be a majority motion in their recommendation in CHC's recommendation to city council to consider that.

Okay.

So if if there's a majority that's interested in it.

In s it it future signage for this building consideration coming back in front of the CHC.

And that would be a condition of this approval I mean of this recommendation to it would likely be a recommendation that we note to city council um okay the the the language specifically about preservation of the United States post office signage is likely something that we want to put into some kind of draft for council to consider.

For council to consider yes yeah so it'd be your recommendation to add certain yes language.

And you're noting all of this discussion and all these points that we've written down I have notes excellent and it is in public record because these are pretty detailed so um very good can we just please can you summarize that for us I have something I want to add to his okay thank you.

Yes.

Well, as the summary.

And um generally didn't talk about but the other features identified of the the drop lights, the post office, the mailboxes within the the lobby.

Otherwise um there was a discussion of a time capsule.

And maybe that's maybe that's not something that is in writing, but a an ask.

Tightening of the covenant document is which is it cities not party to the covenant.

Recommendation we cannot we can even get a verbal commitment, but we cannot enforce that on a third party otherwise.

Um my recommendation would be to have some form of condition as part of a resolution.

Otherwise defining the role, either a staff role, applicant role.

Yep.

Commissioner Towika.

Well, as we all know, the this building is on the national register and the exterior is very important, but I I'm convinced that this lobby is very important and that as they develop plans for the lobby, I would like to at least try to have some of those come before the commission for review.

Um I my feeling is I'd like to preserve as much of the original details as possible in their location.

And I know that's you know, we're not living in a world where we uh living in a museum.

I mean we do have to move forward and make some changes, but I'd like to see some attempt to keep a lot of the historic details in place.

And uh if that was something that could come back to the commission or uh be part of a uh motion for the uh conditions, uh I would like to see that.

I think in the past with other projects, it hasn't necessarily come back before the commission, but staff created reports that uh came back to the commission in that manner.

Well, I the only reason I mention it is that we really don't have a lot of details for this lobby at this point.

And I just think that somehow maybe this commission could see more of those details at some point in the future.

How is staff uh I mean uh it's a difficult conundrum because um and maybe you can talk to that as far as your planning because as I've said it's it's a time, it's a money, it's a thing to come back before the commission, but as we're all talking, these interior pieces are so uh so uh prominent for the preservation of the ones one piece, but how can it work with the applicants uh movement, you know, and progress, but a way that the commission is assured and sees some of these changes.

It's I forgot to ask the applicant uh the wood, even though it's considered a distinctive interior piece, the way the wood works now, the the header, there's no way that's gonna stay in that local location or could it.

So where will that go or and and I think it's all tying together?

So how does staff see this working for both the applicant as well as the commission?

Uh I just want to start out by clarifying that the code requires that uh alterations to interior portions of the building uh be considered at a staff level.

They only require historic clearance, excuse me.

So not even a certificate of appropriateness permit, um, but that's separate from a conversation about reporting on the the covenant, even though it is with a third party um I don't see an issue with a supplemental report about the interior.

Then that's covering that.

I just yeah, yeah.

Well, this is a national register building, and when a building is on the national register and it's publicly accessed, it is uh subject to review.

Right.

Can I suggest something?

Um, what I'm hearing in uh general is that there's a lot of things that are gonna occur in the future uh that you're you have some concern about and uh you have a desire to provide input on those things, but given the posture of where we are now, you uh you are being asked to prepare a recommendation to the city council uh one way or another, right?

Correct.

So uh so y you might think about your recommendation including uh and I'm thinking off the top of my head a little bit, but for example, with respect to the the signage your recommendation could be uh in the event that the the existing US post office sign is not um able to be preserved then council you recommend that council consider the uh signage uh that would maintain the dignity you know and the character of the building and you would uh recommend that if possible the commission be given an opportunity to weigh in on that now it doesn't mean that council is going to agree with that and approve it but it sounds to me like that kind of gets at what you would like to see happen uh and you could sort of frame a request about the lobby the same way to the extent that uh more of the lobby would be preserved uh the commission would like an opportunity to weigh in on the preservation of character and dignity as is in its usual purview uh on those uh future you know potential modifications I guess in the event that council agrees that that might be possible.

That sounds like where I was going with that yes.

And that goes through staff to the commission correct.

Well this will go to the council of course yeah but and then what the council decides will be you know documented in the council resolution or approval or I think what that simply does is is notes the the important you know the the importance and the desire for the commission to have some further you know connectivity.

In a nutshell I I think that characterizes your ask so to speak you know and your recommendation and allows this to go to the city council and then you know they will understand your thoughts and I think that yeah I I think that gets to the heart of it and and I I think that um I think that the applicant with all the the team is has at the heart the best interest of what this commission is trying to do and I think that by noting that with council that will solidify that connection and that relationship for the commission to to have an understanding and a trust working with council.

So is there something other that uh commissioner wesson I think that because the plans are not finalized that we're having we're struggling with what are you doing with the mailboxes what are you doing with the clear story what are you doing with the lights so I think if we make it known what we would like and use that then the applicant when they have um completed their plans knowing what we would like then we can review again to see how that fits in with our preservation plan.

I go ahead would I think that's an outcome a possible outcome but I would also note that when the council acts if they approve a certificate of appropriateness and it's based on plans you know that are uh presented to them then they may uh those plans may be implemented they may be subject to change and that will depend on how council you know uh acts uh when when this whole package comes before them and so to give some additional clarity to the direction I think the ask is maybe we can't necessarily be so broad in what that those features that you're concerned about are I think that we need to explicitly state the sp the specific features that you're interested in as otherwise I think the plans are what the plans are generally and there are certain vested rights within the the conceptual layout but if there's an interest and I what I'm hearing is there is an interest with certain features and maybe those features are greater than what has previously been outlined but the mailboxes the lights the windows generally.

But aren't those just aren't they defined?

I mean aren't not aren't they shown in the project analysis they're not identified specifically defining yeah.

And if I may add right counsel is going to hear your concerns about and using the mailboxes and as an example your recommendation will include or I'm assuming will probably include incorporating the mailboxes into the uh project in some form uh and the and also that uh it will include your request to have input into how that's done right so when this goes to council they will hear that and then they will make their decision on and they'll hear also the concerns about the sign.

They'll hear your concerns about the lobby but ultimately the council is the final arbiter right.

I would prefer to see the mailboxes in the lobby are located now rather than stuck somewhere else as a next so that's the that's the crux of it's not just that they're reused somewhere that's the discussion is that i that they're in site currently do they remain there.

Well I I think my comment was to try and keep the lobby as much in its present state as possible given the program has I I understand there has to be changes but but the goal would be to keep the pro keep the lobbies under the ambience as much as possible the way it is.

So would it reflect and of course um you're speaking for yourself right now but maybe everyone agrees with you but um would it reflect your uh your desire in that way to recommend that council uh consider uh modifications that maintain the lobby to the extent possible in its current condition uh and if they do that uh and there are changes to the plan the CHC would like input into those changes that would that would be your recommend you you know the commission has agree that would be my recommendation yeah this is your recommendation and you you can frame your recommend I'm trying to you know crystallize what I'm hearing here and I'm not trying to write it for you but it's your recommendation and you can recommend to the council you know whatever you want.

Well one item to to know just um applicant would be willing and then through staff to provide a report once there's due diligence of how certain features that aren't identified as those character defining features could be preserved as part of whatever and this is this is a voluntary commitment voiced by the applicant to um come back and provide a presentation, otherwise that would describe how they could achieve that.

Maybe it's not to the the point of original form is understanding that there's a lot in balancing as a balancing act here.

Um if the commission is so interested in that, that could be a majority move as well as expectation at the time due diligence provides more detailed construction plans to demonstrate what some of those efforts look like.

Does that sound to commissioners?

Do you have any other does that make sense to you?

Does that sound like what you're trying to get across and that is acceptable to you or at this time?

Are there any other comments on that idea of what we're trying to get at?

Well, for me that's fine, but the other commission is if they agree.

I agree.

Do you agree, Commissioner Wesson?

Okay.

So then this is something that just needs to be have staff at work with council on how to appropriately word it so that we can get what we're trying to uh obtain appropriately in this motion so that council understands our C of A based on some of these comments.

Not dealing with the third party but working with them through staff, and that this is something that the applicant is uh aware of and has weighed in upon uh as well, but basically the commission is putting this as part of their C of A.

But staff has been taking copious notes to help us.

Yeah, Chair, if I might.

Uh I just want to clarify because I think the words are important here.

Yes, and I appreciate that.

I'm trying to coalesce this down to what you're talking about clarifying is your recommendation, yes.

It's the council's C of A.

Correct.

Correct.

Yeah, yes.

Sorry, my voting is not.

No, that's but I I wanted to make sure we're on the same wavelength.

Recommending for sure.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So and if okay, so I was just gonna I have five or six items here, each one of which I think is subject to similar language about council uh the commission recommends that you consider X.

And if you consider X, then there are modifications made, the commission recommends that we get an opportunity to review them.

I think that's the kind of format of what we're talking about here for the various topics.

We uh I'm kind of hoping you agree, right?

Yeah, my next ask to the chair would be whether staff could have at least 10 minutes in recess to further define what that motion could look like.

Unless if you want to continue deliberating, it's up to the chair.

No, I give us additional direction, but no, I think.

So uh yes, please, because I want to get this right uh this time uh to recognition.

It's a complicated multiple.

It is and I yes, so I would please ask for a 10 minute recess for you staff to work on this.

We also have other items for recommendation too.

This is just one of the items.

Well, then perhaps those should be a part of that right now, so that they can take their 10 minutes all in incorporated.

So, if I may, it might make sense to take five minutes now for I think right or you could probably summarize what those items are, right?

And then during the recess, staff could convene and talk about how to modify the recommendation so that it captures all of the concerns that you've raised.

Do you have additional concerns other than the ones you've already said?

That we haven't talked about the historic features inventory and treatment plan that I that I mentioned.

And you that was when you talked about um documenting all historic c pieces?

Yes, that are on the list and not on the list and what is actually going to happen to them and where would where will they go?

Um and how will they be reused and salvaged and I think that was more specific.

Because there are things that are not on the list like I don't believe the cornerstone that you had a photo of is is on the list but that's a very important attachment three.

Oh it is but all right then there's the walk in safes there's you know other items that are part of the story.

And they're more specific rather than well we're going to try and do this, but I would like to see a little more concrete.

But without going um without going through each item right here and now we don't have to go through each other.

So how can so maybe that's a part of what staff can take in this break and discuss.

And I because I think our one of your overall statements covered that I think.

Some of those pieces are covered.

I mean it's uh without going through it here it's it's a difficult conundrum to get each one right on.

Oh no I don't think we should do that here.

Okay.

Because we don't even know what that's part of the that's part of the the recommendation that we're getting towards that staff will uh be working um on these details and that we can put that as a part of the motion.

And also the um archival record that that be a package put together that can be shared with a third party and then um the exhibit a um expanded because it's just really one page now.

And that's what you said was okay.

Yeah.

So I think that's it.

Yeah and maybe to clarify the last statement uh available to the city and available upon request by a third party but we cannot require it's fine that's fine because we can always tell the historical side to shoot you an email and you can send it over to them.

Okay.

How about a ten minute recess so you can review this.

Thank you very much.

Please ten minutes at the most so we'll come back here at uh five to eight and move right along.

I'll go with the restroom.

If that's what I don't know, that's that we do this.

Oh, there you go.

Hello.

Okay, very good.

I wasn't, but good.

Maybe it was frightened.

But uh let's bring this meeting back into order.

Um where we left off, staff was going to take a recess and try to uh coalesce our comments that will be part of the uh motion that we send to council.

So if you could maybe review those, that would be great.

Yeah, we we took many nodes and we generally try to combine all items into two motions, otherwise.

We tried to have a effort instead of multiple motions.

Great.

Um, so first one is relative to both the existing signage and the lobby.

We'll combine those efforts.

So the commission recommends that the city council consider expanding preservation of the existing signage and the lobby, including preservation of the mailboxes and such other aspects of the lobby that the council may consider.

And if the council agrees, the commission would like input on the modification to the plans.

Yep, that's would that include the clear story windows?

That's generally covered under the such other aspects of the lobby, but if it's within an interest, we can independently.

And you're talking and you're talking about the clear story windows above the counter is what you're doing.

Yes, above the wood-free.

Not the ones on the front facade.

How they relate to each other.

Are they in the lobby?

Yes.

Oh, I think it well, in my view that that's by using the word lobby, you've sort of left it flexible.

That is one of the character dividing features, but it doesn't mean it can't be modified, right?

It's just right it may need coming back for a consideration or not coming back.

Modify that one to start in the middle of clean preservation of the mailboxes, the clear story windows above the counter, and such other aspects of the lobby that the council may consider.

How about the clear story windows above the wood freeze or those are that's what I'm talking about?

Yeah.

That is the counter the freeze.

The freeze.

That's free.

Well, counter, this is a counter, the freeze is up there.

Oh but this is a beam with an eye.

Right, that's the wood freeze.

I think we're all talking about the same thing.

Okay.

Um the second one combine certain efforts.

So the commission recommends that the city council consider requiring the applicant work with a qualified third party to be approved by the community resources and development department director to provide more detail and expanding the inventory and treatment as well as an archival record.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

That covers it.

And what about the exhibit A?

That would be an aspect of the documentation.

But we can clearly out we can outline that too.

But um as discussed, it wouldn't be exhibit A as much, it'd be the full record of the nomination form.

So because the covenant in itself is executed and held by a different party city's not per party to, so R asked would that that documentation be full.

And so I I think it's included as part of that of the all nomination forms, but we can explicitly outline that too.

Yeah, that needs to be not just for us now, it's for future, because that goes with the property.

Mm-hmm.

So it should probably be delineated in that statement.

Right.

Okay.

I think how does uh commission how do the commissioners feel about these statements that staff has provided us and you good with this, Commissioner Wesson?

Commissioner McKinney.

Okay.

So I think we're to a point uh where we can make a motion then, correct?

So how about uh Commission Vice Chair Towica, would you like to take a stab at that motion, please?

If if it's any easier, I can list because these are motions with in and of themselves.

That would be easier, outline it, and if you would say we what he said, yeah, like they did for the planning.

Yes, that would be very uh desirable.

Yeah, because he's got it written.

So, just so we're closing the loop on the second one.

So to provide more detail, document all history, including nomination forms, and expanding the inventory and treatment as well as an archival record.

Yes, Alan.

Is that cover it?

I believe it does.

Okay.

I'll believe you.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

So the first one.

The commission recommends that the city council consider expanding preservation of the existing signage and the lobby, including preservation of the mailboxes, Claritory Windows above the counter, and such other aspects of the lobby that the council may consider.

And if the council agrees, the commission would like input on the modification to the plans.

I would make that motion.

Yep.

So you made the motion based on the staff comments.

Do I have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

So the motions passed to recommend this C of A to City Council based, including the comments that staff has provided us.

Is that correct?

I think he has another one.

That's the first one.

So that was those are the motion of for the recommendation.

Correct.

Then the second one is the commission recommends the city council consider requiring the applicant work with a qualified third party to be approved by the community resources and development department director to provide more detail, document all history, including nomination forms, expanding the inventory and treatment as well as an archival record.

Okay, I would make that motion.

So Vice Chair Toweka made the motion.

Do I have a second?

A second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

So then approval of the second C of A.

Now do we have to do the determination with the CEQA and that statement?

If Commission wants to further deliberate, but we can move to the recommendation.

Do we have any further deliberation, Commissioners?

I do not.

No.

So now we can make a motion correct that includes the statement that the CEQA determination and that portion with the recommended action.

Correct?

So we have the two motions with the staff commentary.

Do I have somebody that would uh do I have a motion from additional uh commissioner on the CEQA determination and the addendum?

Anyone?

How about Commissioner Vice Chair Towica?

All right, I could do the other one, yeah.

The uh cultural heritage commission recommends that we forward to the city council an adoption of a resolution approving pursuant to section one five one six eight analysis and addendum to the downtown specific plan programmatic environmental impact report and alternatively to the CEQA guidelines section one five three three two categorical exemption and number two adopt a resolution approving a certificate of appropriateness and determine that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed and addressed by a prior California Environmental Quality Act action as documented in the addendum for the Franklin Station 2 project.

Do I have a second on this?

Oh, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Approved.

So then I think that's it.

We've covered each of the C of A needs.

And uh my goodness, I really appreciate everyone uh being here.

This is an amazing process.

And um, the team that's saving this project, the essence, the details, the project uh documentation you went into.

I think every commissioner up here wholeheartedly appreciates it.

I think that you have found a good team of people that's gonna go forward uh certainly with what planning commission is recommended, and I think you hear the essence and heart of what we care about for this uh project.

I think it's fantastic the details you've taken into consideration with the new construction, even though that's not our purview.

I think there's a lot of exciting opportunity that uh I can only say I really appreciate that you delineated between the historic jewel structure and the new structure by a curtain wall that I kept calling a gasket, reminded me of uh the new addition to the Guggenheim, and I think it's gonna do our city proud that um you're taking such time and care and design sensibilities to work with the new construction, but celebrate this historic jewel.

And I think each of us appreciated so much the documentation that came to us because it's a difficult conundrum to make these major decisions on something so historic and detailed when you don't have all the details yet.

But I think we believe in the team that here's at the heart of what is important to this commission, to the planning commission, to the community, to Napa County Landmarks and beyond, and and I so I think speaking for the commission, we uh hope you the best of success and uh on this, but I have to end with staff because you are going through major hoops uh to make this happen for all the commissioners, and the detail you guys are taking in time is beyond appreciated uh because we couldn't do this without your work, and so um I think we all applaud you for your time and efforts and appreciate everyone being here.

Even back to our community development director in the corner.

And uh thank you for our all being a part of this.

And I think that's it for our project on this one.

So good luck, go forth and uh we hope the best.

So thank you.

Yep.

Thank you.

We are not done yet.

If you really want to stay, we have a few more items, but thank you for your time.

Um, at this time we're moving forward so quickly to the administrative reports.

I don't think we have any at this time.

Um, and then comments by commissioners and staff.

I don't know if staff has any comments.

Do you have a and and I have some comments too?

So go ahead.

Um this is uh shameless plug, but the draft zoning ordinance is out for public review until the 24th of July.

And that misleading in the sense of that our our primary public draft receiving comments through zoning update at city of Napa.org and then logging all comments received for review before we go to adoption to um planning commission's consideration and city council ultimately in adoption of a draft zoning ordinance.

But next week on Tuesday, so July 14th, 5:30 at the Napa County Library in the community room.

Great city staff along with our consultant from Lisa Wise Consulting will be holding um a public workshop providing a high-level overview of the changes to the draft zoning ordinance.

So it's Title 17 specifically.

There are any updates to um 155-2, but Title 17.

So as interested members of the public, as you will if you'd like to participate in that workshop, um, as well as a study session during planning commission on the 16th.

So Thursday the 16th.

The hearing starts at 5 30.

We have some other items being considered before we get into an admin report for the study session, but I would encourage everyone that's interested to participate in that process.

The 16th specifically, because it is a planning commission hearing, though there will be recordings of that, it will be streamed.

The workshop, unfortunately, is not.

We have a lot of staff available and certain documentation could be made available to the public if interested on the workshop.

Um, would that be considered continuing education for this commission for our certified local government?

Anyway, yes.

And nice that you point that because the recommendation of Bill here.

Um, staff is looking into furthering educational opportunities, both for staff, kind of leading efforts through through Paul as well as the commission.

So as we're made aware of opportunities for additional training, we'll let you know.

And if you become aware of opportunities that you'd like for us to consider, because there's a balancing of budget if necessary, um, would recommend reaching out as well.

Okay.

Other item that the question came up about the depository of the stones of the street bridge.

I did bring up in a meeting, a pre-meeting, folks, the about the stones over the the Napa, the stone bridge over the Napa Creek that was demolished years ago.

And so staff will be following up with our public works department on on that to bring clarity.

Um as well as some general interest still in the Thomas Earl House.

That's marketing it.

What's been publicly informed to us is that they're also considering partners.

So great.

Thank you very much.

That's to the extent that we know.

What's the condition of the parts that are in storage there, Ed?

Yeah, and that that's a that's a good point that you had.

So there was a question too about the extent of all the materials, and while most of the materials are under the covers, there are other materials likely held off site.

So we will bring clarity to that as well.

Right.

At our pre-meeting, we talked about that.

Yeah.

And because there's off site more detailed specific interior things that we were supposed to get um reports back about, so that's where that's coming from.

Great.

Um Commission, thank you very much.

Commissioner Wesson, do you have some questions?

Do you have a timeline on the um buildings that were moved from the Oxpo that are now being stored on Randolph?

Um I mean, subject to the construction timelines generally right now, they're the conditions tie the the projects together generally.

So ultimately, if you you look at it from kind of a high level timeline, is that those structures shall be completed prior to to occupancy, generally certificate of occupancy, I should say, of the hotel buildings, but the the timelines for those structures are moving quicker than well the hotel is still moving along pretty pretty substantially.

There's a lot of moving parts associated with it, but the structures have been moved as you've probably noticed, as well as plans have been I believe issued already for that.

So they're subject to the construction timelines now.

So there's the timelines to when inspections have to occur to can continue the progress of the construction.

So both high-level overviews, the the projects are tied together to dictate some timeline, but they also have to meet certain goals uh in inspection timelines to continue that progress along.

So they could essentially m milk it out to that timeline, but I don't think that's the intent.

I think their intent is to get it done as as quickly as they can.

Right, because when they move those buildings, they disassemble the walls and the entire thing uh a la Thomas Earl kind of, and they're all under plastic tarps.

Yeah, so Paul and I took tours beforehand and then gave some additional direction based off of the commission's direction and the certificate of appropriateness, and as you started peeling back on the layers, there was like there were difficulties not only in the way it was actually constructed and the additions and the additions and the additions to those structures, but the logistics to transport over bridge under power lines, made it where it would have been I wouldn't say infeasible, but substantially more difficult to try to move them entirely, so they had to disassemble.

But if if clarity needs to be brought, like if structures are considered in the future in front of the commission, clarity needs to be brought to what they intend to do in relocating, happy to provide that in future reports so at least there's there's clarity.

Yes, please, because that was a little surprising because when you think of moving a building, you think as a whole, not in pieces.

Thank you.

All right, any other comments?

I have a question for the attorney.

Yes.

About the Mills Act.

Okay.

And um my question is, is personal property one that is an item that you can place on your 10-year plan.

Say if you have a 1900 home, and you've bought a 1950s Kefo Merit stove just to kind of give it a vintage vibe.

Um, and you think that you know, at some point you want to recondition that stove.

Is that an item that you can put on the tenure plan because it is personal property, and when you move, you can take it with you.

Uh yes.

Uh uh yes is not the answer.

Yes, I understand the question.

Uh and uh I can't answer you right here, but I will look into it and uh discuss it with staff and we'll get an answer for you.

Okay, thank you.

Excellent.

Comment on that having prepared about 25 Mills acts.

If it's something that you're taking with you, it's probably not.

Uh yeah, that's my initial answer.

But I don't want to that's how we did it.

If it was personal property, it was not like a kitchen renovation where the cabinets stay.

Yes, yeah, right.

Well, yeah, that's that's that's my feeling, but um that has come up.

Maybe you could give us or a formal thought on that at your own time.

Yeah, I uh not.

Like I said, I'll talk about it with staff, we'll come up with a more formal answer.

Well, I was trying to get us out of here before the planning commission.

Uh theirs was three hours.

I thought, oh no, we'll get done.

Yes, please.

I did forget one item though.

We're bringing on uh I mentioned to a few of you before we're bringing on an associate planner on the 20th that has experience and maybe to tug at the soft spot, Commissioner Tweeka from the city of Vallejo coming to the city of Napa.

Excellent.

Generally, so um some historic preservation experience on the public side, obviously some probably overlap in what those projects were, but not overlap and timeline that they didn't work together.

Yeah.

Yeah, but at least maybe some shared projects um generally.

Excellent.

But uh look forward to introducing you.

Very good.

Glad that you guys, I know you need help.

Okay, so everybody needs help.

Um I just have some quick comments.

I won't take too long.

We did have a pre-meeting.

Uh Vice Chair Toeka and myself um with Ryder and Molly.

And um just for future reference, I'm hoping that we could continue to do that.

In the past we did that with Michael Walker and even before that, and we just had a standing um plan to have it, and then we canceled it if we didn't need it, so that it was scheduled in, and so staff had a better way to plan ahead for it, and then we would as well.

And so it was like a standing idea, but then it's like, oh, we have one thing that's not any issues at all.

No, we don't need the pre-meeting.

So asking if staff can consider that and let us know, and that would help future chair persons and vice chairs, not a Brown Act violation.

We're just talking about logistics and making sure some questions are answered because I think it streamlines our meetings because you had a lot of um things already answered from our pre-meeting, not only for the not really for the project as much, but you knew where we were going, I guess, with some questions, so it could help streamline.

And I don't think that's any kind of violation.

Thomas Earl House, you already brought that information.

They were supposed to get we were supposed to constantly be getting updates.

So they i if you can get to the bottom of that as far as possible, every pun intended.

Please try.

The stones, yes.

I think there's an opportunity as we discussed to get them maybe out at the new um, you know, down by the Costco at that new uh park.

But if we don't bring them out and bring it to the forefront of public works and everything, it will never be considered and they'll just sit there and become rubble.

Um, I have a question about the stones.

Does it have to be in a public space or could it be private?

I don't know.

That's a question.

I don't know if it's I don't know.

I think somebody, I don't know if you can buy them.

I don't know if they can be renovated.

I think they'd have to sell.

The city would, they own them.

The city owns those stones.

Thank you.

Uh the uh and I'm just trying to say that it just they're just sitting there.

Can we figure out where they are, how much there, how many there are?

It made the whole bridge over the uh Napa Creek.

It was very historic at the time, and the idea was to bring them back at some point.

So I don't want to belabor that, but I think maybe there's a little research.

Where could they be?

Could they be given away?

Could they be sold off?

Could somebody take them to the yard?

Their own home, yeah.

Anyway, and lastly, um, and Amy Lynn was here, but this our meeting was so impactful and long.

Uh, the city's historic signage program.

I I just need to figure out how we can um get that on the agenda.

And uh Amy Lynn of Lynn Design Studios said she'd be happy to um, she's back in the area, she'd be happy to talk with staff, and uh there was also discussion if we could do a subcommittee uh on that.

As we used in the past, we had a few subcommittees, including Beverly Shotwell during one of those.

So, doesn't have to be me, but I think I would just like to figure out how to get that uh on an agenda and keep moving it forward because funding is the biggest thing, and I have no idea what the recommendation from council or city would be, and if we can do a public-private partnership.

So those were my only comments.

That's it.

I don't let's beat Planning Commission by five minutes.

Anyway, I think we do not have to motion to adjourn, correct?

We are adjourned.

And just thank you so much, staff, all of you.

You guys rocked this.

I know it's so hard doing multiple levels of reports and from the planning commission to us, so thanks so much.

All right, we're done.

Good job